You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

As a last salute to Jim Washburn and the wide-9, I wanted to start this thread to discuss the issues on defense and how, I feel, despite the poor play from our secondary and all-around defensive performance, much of the problem is with coaching, scheme, and the devil that is the wide-9.

The wide-9 is designed to get to the quarterback.

The wide-9 allows defensive ends to get some space between him and the offensive tackle and get a good jump on the opposing quarterback by angling slightly towards him, and to get around the tackle faster than the quarterback can get the ball off.

The true problem with the wide-9 is that it creates problems all over the field when it isn't working. And even when it is working, it's still easily exploitable.

1. Limited DE responsibilities
Most defensive ends rush the passer, but they have an equally as important job against the run. In a traditional 4-3, the DE has to read pass or run and react accordingly. His job is to keep outside contain, and to NOT over-pursue.

Over-pursuing the QB opens up draws, screens, pitches, options... whatever simple offensive plays that are designed to take advantage of irresponsible defensive ends.

The wide-9, by design, requires our defensive ends to abandon the usual responsibilities of a true defensive end. It is flawed by design. It is intrinsically irresponsible, and it's not surprising teams can manipulate us.

2. The safeties and secondary take the largest punishment
So we've been castrating our entire secondary for their play. Some of their flaws are indefensible: bad tackling, low effort, mis-reads, etc.

But I think the deeper problem is that the wide-9 simply asks too much of our safeties and both Nate Allen and Kurt Coleman, as bad as they've been, are being abused by the wide-9 and the defensive scheme.

In point 1, we discussed how the wide-9 requires the ends to abandon run responsibilities and outside contain. The ends also abandon draws, screens, shovel passes... whatever devices offenses decide to use to exploit the wide-9.

When the defensive ends abandon a certain responsibility on the field, someone else somewhere has to make up for it.

This just so happens to fall on the shoulders of our safeties.

Now we know that the safety position carries this 'last line of defense' mantra. Well, the wide-9 basically asks them to be the first line of defense too. When the DE isn't caring about the run, someone has to, and that is on the safeties.

Just look at where the safeties line up. Defensive secondary. Way the hell away from the line of scrimmage.

And they're expected to come up and compensate for what the wide-9 does not ask the ends to do.

If our safeties are a second too slow, or don't react right away, we're suffering huge gashes against the run. Is it any surprise then that play action seems to completely kill our safeties? I don't think Kurt Coleman is dumb. I'm pretty sure he knows not to bite on play action. But he does anyways.

Why?

Because he has to come up and make the play on play action. He just so happens to have 'over the top' responsibilities too. How ridiculous do these demands sound?

It's simple for offenses. You run the ball until the safety starts to come up. Then you play action, fool the safety, then throw over top.
^^Does this not sound awful simple? Yet, it's been effective.

3. Easy for linemen to get to the second level
Another problem with the wide-9 is that it simply allows offensive linemen to get to the 2nd level too easily. The ends, by design, are lined up to avoid direct engagement with the offensive line.

This makes it easy for the offensive linemen to just allow the DE to run free and make a run, untouched, to the linebackers or even the secondary.

How often have we seen a running back cleanly carve his way through the defensive line? How often have we seen a secondary player make first contact with the ball carrier?

4. Easy to run against
Where is our friend from New Jersey BLick?
I know he has strong convictions about this aspect of the wide-9.

The wide-9 is NOT designed to stop the run in any way. By lining up your ends so far outside and allowing them to charge at the QB unrestrained, it opens up a plethora of running play that could take advantage of it.

Run a draw play and run right where the defensive end vacated.
Run a power and just have the OT kick out, or ride out, the DE.
Any run play that runs to where the DE will inevitably vacate is going to go for decent yards. Especially when 5 linemen are blocking 4 defensive linemen, someone's going to get to the second level and make a block.

The wide-9 is completely useless against the run.

5. Predictable as all hell
The wide-9 is way too predictable.

This is what the Eagles are going to do:

Code:

Rush four down linemen, with ends lined up wide.
No stunts
No blitzes
No exotic packages
LBs will play their zone
CBs will play their zone, sometimes man
Safeties will have both coverage and run responsibilities

And we will NEVER do anything different.
For the sake of the wide-9, our defense sacrifices any blitzes, any masks, any smokescreens, any unpredictable blitzing schemes, or any stunts at the defensive line.

Teams know how to beat this defense simply because they know what's going to come at any given time, and we never do anything different. The wide-9 limits what this defense can do.

6. When the wide-9 isn't working...
The wide-9 can work. But you kind of need some things to go right. You need an offense who doesn't know how to counter it, and you need some sort of dominant players on the line.

The wide-9 rushes 4 guys against at minimum 5.
What happens when an offense keeps a back to pass protect? Now you have 4 guys rushing against 6.

From a numbers stand point, it's unfavorable. And offenses don't have to worry about surprises in blitzing or stunts up front. The wide-9 doesn't allow that.

Unless you have some really un-athletic guys at OT, then the wide-9 is easy to mitigate simply by using the end's momentum against him. Just ride him out and allow the QB to step up.

Sure, the wide-9 can rack up some stats. But that's because they're rushing the passer on basically EVERY DOWN, of course you will have some numbers.

But when it's not working as intended, meaning, getting to the quarterback, it gives the quarterback way too much time to pick apart the secondary.

It puts a huge strain on the coverage guys, who have to chase around receivers all day.

7. Inflexibility within a defensive scheme
I think Todd Bowles, Juan Castillo, and Jim Washburn all have different and conflicting, even contradiction views of defense.

Castillo was put in a bad place. Make no mistake. But I think what he stressed was simplicity and fundamentals (Juandamentals) which, personally, I thought was a good thing.

I think had he been given more time, he would have eventually figured out how to maximize his play calling.

But with the wide-9, how much could he do? He can't dial blitzes, he can't have his linemen stunt, the wide-9 is abusing his secondary and comes with a long list of problems internally, and when it isn't working as intended.

Todd Bowles needs to be given a break. If Andy stays, I think Bowles is back. I think it speaks for the inconsistency among our defensive staff that Washburn employs his own style of defensive line play that constricts and limits what the rest of the defense can do. With Washburn on the staff, it was HIS DEFENSE, it was never Castillo's or Bowles'.

Bowles was put in a bad position too. A d-line coach who tells you what the defense can and can't do. He was thrown to play calling responsibilities without an off-season. Of course he was going to struggle.

What this team needs

Scrap the wide-9 (CHECK)
And get some continuity, some consistency. Have one unified defensive philosophy that every staff on defense agrees with and shares. We can't have a bunch of coaches who have their own ideas. And we can't have a defensive plan that is dictated by a single component of the defense.

First off, Detroit and to a lesser extent Cincinatti use variations of the "wide 9" front. You don't hear the same complaints out of there. In fact, you never heard a whisper about it out of Tennessee either. You never heard fans whining about it until it came to Philly. Hows come?

For your point 2, I believe the LBs are the ones who take the brunt of the extra responsibility for filling gaps v. the run. Certainly it affects the safeties, but only to a lesser extent.

On point 3, I actually have yet to see linemen letting our ends run free outside of setting up a screen pass. You can say a lot about the Eagles' ends, but you can't say they don't know how to get to the QB. That is a quick way to get your QB injured.

On point 5. Understand that it is a base formation. Certainly at the beginning of the 2011 season, teams were able to take advantage of over use. But once Castillo started to vary things up, the defense improved and the formation itsself became more effective. I pretty much disagree with this point all together. It's obvious you don't recall the variations that were used last year such as "double 3's" with both DTs in the 3 tech and DEs moving around and rushing from various locations.

Further, you ignore the success the team had earlier this season in the first 3 quarters. Granted, the lack of ability to adjust late in games was an issue, but they were at least strong in 3/4 of the majority of the games. I'm not entirely sure I totally blame Bowles, but the "let's suck in all 4 quarters instead of just 1" didn't start until he took over.

Again, the "wide 9" is a base alignment. There is no law that says you can't move guys around or stunt. Heck, the Eagles were using 5 man lines on running downs just last night. That's different in itsself.

I'm not particularly for or against the wide 9, I just think people are looking for anything they can to explain the massive suckfest that has been the Eagles this season, and seeing things that are really not necessarily there.

First off, Detroit and to a lesser extent Cincinatti use variations of the "wide 9" front. You don't hear the same complaints out of there. In fact, you never heard a whisper about it out of Tennessee either. You never heard fans whining about it until it came to Philly. Hows come?

Although a bit irrelevant, do you know what those 4 teams have in common? None have won a Super Bowl.

These teams aren't exactly the shining cities on the hillside.

If we're going to run a similar system as another team, I'd rather it NOT be Cincinnati, Detroit, or Tennessee. Those teams have had large problems aside from their defensive scheme which has dictated the discourse surrounding the team.

I can't speak for their teams. I don't follow them. I didn't even know Cincinnati runs the wide-9.

But Washburn is the Jesus of the wide-9. He's the Mohammad. He runs the purest wide-9 there is. Other teams might run something similar, or utilize it to varying degrees, but it's not the straight wide-9 that defines our defense.

You don't even hear about Cincinnati running a wide-9. Why? Probably because it doesn't define their defense.

And I recall there being problems in Detroit's secondary for as long as I can recall.

Quote:

For your point 2, I believe the LBs are the ones who take the brunt of the extra responsibility for filling gaps v. the run. Certainly it affects the safeties, but only to a lesser extent.

Affects the safeties to a lesser extent, but with much large consequences. The linebackers can vacate their coverage responsibilities and still have the "last line of defense" there. Once the safeties vacate, there's nobody behind them.

Plus, I'm pretty sure Akeem Jordan plays less than half the snaps on defense. When the team runs with 2 linebackers, it puts more pressure on the safeties.

Quote:

On point 3, I actually have yet to see linemen letting our ends run free outside of setting up a screen pass. You can say a lot about the Eagles' ends, but you can't say they don't know how to get to the QB. That is a quick way to get your QB injured.

This is what I said:

Quote:

This makes it easy for the offensive linemen to just allow the DE to run free and make a run, untouched, to the linebackers or even the secondary.

It wasn't in pass protection. It's mainly when executing run plays.
I picked a random game to choose from, and I saw an example right away.

Seek, and ye shall find. Lo and behold, I found an example of a free pass rusher being exploited.

Quote:

I actually have yet to see linemen letting our ends run free outside of setting up a screen pass.

And now you have.

Quote:

On point 5. Understand that it is a base formation. Certainly at the beginning of the 2011 season, teams were able to take advantage of over use. But once Castillo started to vary things up, the defense improved and the formation itsself became more effective. I pretty much disagree with this point all together. It's obvious you don't recall the variations that were used last year such as "double 3's" with both DTs in the 3 tech and DEs moving around and rushing from various locations.

It's a base formation that requires every other facet of the defense to adapt to it. Our corners aren't playing man, or zone, they're playing man and zone with the wide-9. It changes everything up.

Sure, we use variations. We've seen our ends even drop into coverage at times. But those are used very sparingly and for the vast majority of the time, we're running the same old thing, with 4 down linemen.

A few exceptions, a few variation? Sure, but it's not enough to keep offenses guessing.

Quote:

Further, you ignore the success the team had earlier this season in the first 3 quarters. Granted, the lack of ability to adjust late in games was an issue, but they were at least strong in 3/4 of the majority of the games. I'm not entirely sure I totally blame Bowles, but the "let's suck in all 4 quarters instead of just 1" didn't start until he took over.

Success in the first 3 quarters, but enough to get Castillo fired. We were having success but it wasn't all butterflies and rainbows either. Our guys still weren't getting to the quarterback, which lost us games.

Bowles took over and the defense started sucking for 4 quarters. Isn't this easily explained by the fact that after a few weeks, we fired the guy who was coordinating the team for 2 years and the guy who worked the defense over the summer?

Bowles went from secondary coach to play caller over night. And the boss wasn't happy with the way things were going.

So he couldn't do the same thing. He tried to implement his own ideas. And those ideas only resulted in more confusion.

Quote:

Again, the "wide 9" is a base alignment. There is no law that says you can't move guys around or stunt. Heck, the Eagles were using 5 man lines on running downs just last night. That's different in itsself.

The wide-9 doesn't prevent a total annihilation of variation or doing "other things", but the overall majority of the time we're doing the same old thing. We can't blitz effectively. We don't have a lot of stunts.

How can you expect to stunt when your end is 2 yards outside the tackle? If you stunt him inside that means the DT has to replace him. Too much time is wasted.

It is well known the wide-9 prevents creativity in blitzing and stunting.

Quote:

I'm not particularly for or against the wide 9, I just think people are looking for anything they can to explain the massive suckfest that has been the Eagles this season, and seeing things that are really not necessarily there.

I turn on any Eagles game and I see every single thing I mentioned._________________

I am convinced I came up with with Wide-4.5 when I would play Madden on Sega Genesis when I was 8. I'd always play a DE when I was on defense, and I would line him up way far outside to try to get around the OT quicker. The difference between me and Wash is I learned it didn't work by the time I was 10...

I don't believe you even brought the old "But they didn't win a SB" argument up. You know how irrelevant and tired that is. You really glossed over the whole point, which is that you don't hear the wide 9 being blamed for anything outside of Philly. You mentioned Detroit having problems with their secondary "for as long as you can recall" and that would be correct. Their problems were there before the wide 9 was even installed. Which, of course, ties into your point 2. Other teams that use this formation do not have the same issues that the Eagles have been having.

You picked a running play where the backside Flanker pulls as an example? And a flat swing to the slot receiver? Even if the run play were the OT pulling, that and the quick out you show are things you could find in many modern NFL games against agressive defenses. Nothing special to see there.

The lack of variation as you describe attests far more to playcalling than the base formation, wouldn't you say?

Certainly, you could say all that about Bowles, which is why I pointed out that I'm not entirely sure I blame him.

I would tend to place blame on Washburn being a total [inappropriate/removed] rather than the system, if you're going to blame anything.

I still just see people grasping at anything they can think of to scapegoat the crapfest of a season.